S/o tuition thread, this is not a a Jewish problem!

amother

↑ Orchid

Today at 5:27 pm

ora_43 wrote:

And as a quick look around the world will show you, poverty would be rampant.

The issue isn't just the number of workers in the market, but the number of non-workers that each working person has to support.

Eg your average American man is married with two kids, his wife also works. So two workers in the family, two non-workers. His brother and sister also work, so he doesn't support them. His parents work, or are retired, so he doesn't support them. Essentially his job needs to support 2 people.

Your average Afghani man is married with five kids. His wife doesn't work. His sisters don't work. His mother doesn't work. His father is retired, because his father's job involved hard physical labor and he's too old for it now - and 'retirement' means being supported by your children. So he and his two brothers support their two parents and two sisters. His one job needs to support 8.3 people.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the women are working really hard in Afghanistan, helping in the fields, and doing all the household labor that we have machines for.

nylon

Today at 6:29 pm

This isn't very good economics at all.

First of all, women always work. Those Afghani women are working. But even 50 years ago, women worked for pay. They just got paid poorly. What Peterson is complaining about is women being able to work in the same jobs and for the same pay as men, and middle class women working.

When someone says pay is flat since 1973, they mean in real terms, after inflation. It isn't quite that bad, but the average rise in pay obscures the pattern. Wealthy Americans have seen much larger increases in income than working class Americans. On top of that, house price inflation has been much higher than inflation in general, in part due to insufficient homebuilding since the 1980s. The price of healthcare and education has also outpaced inflation.

So yes: families across America, even if they are not frum, have been squeezed. This is absolutely true.

(And in terms of tuition: schools have seen their costs increase, even before we consider whether a school is providing things that did not exist in 1980, and in some cases teachers back then were working for poor salaries. Depending on where you are, you may have to offer salaries at the same level or close to it as local public schools. This is especially true in MO or OOT schools as they may need to hire non-Jewish teachers for some subjects and they are not going to do it solely out of dedication to yeshiva education.)

amother

Clear ↓

Today at 7:17 pm

amother Molasses wrote:

Sorry but how has nobody mentioned that without birth control, the birth rate would be at least double, thereby at least doubling the amount of boys who grow to be men who would be in the work force. Instead of all these extra women. The labor available would still be double

I'm not following the math on this one. If the men would be replacing the women in the workforce, the workforce would still be the same. Im assuming that it's given that there will be a comparable amount of girls born too.

And if the population is growing exponentially, the workforce ratio would following a similar trajectory.

amother

↑ Molasses

Today at 9:56 pm

amother Clear wrote:

Say there were 1,000 people in America, 500 men and 500 women. The women go on birth control and all couples have an average of two children. The next generation has 1,000 people all of whom are working.

Now if those 1,000 Americans never went on birth control, say the couples would all on average have 4 children. The next generation would have 2,000 people, only the men would work so there would be 1,000 people in the work force. Effectively there would be the same amount of people in the workforce either way.

amother

↑ Clear

Today at 10:34 pm

amother Molasses wrote:

Exactly my point. So I am not understanding the calculations how the workforce would double.